 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:15
|
|
Attention: overall ranking has been moved to the second post.
Too many people are voting without knowing the rules (properly) so I moved the rules up to make them easier to spot. Also, this way the first post can serve as a central point with relevant links for this thread and the Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack (see bottom of post).
Okay, contrary to my habits, I'll try and keep this short (or as short as possible anyway )...
For historical purposes, here are Parts previous incarnations of this discussion:
Expansion Pack Civs: One more thread... (Let's do it right)
Expansion Pack Civs (Part 2) (temporary thread due to forum problems, started by MarkG)
Expansion Pack Civs (Part 3): Just one more...
If you want to read about the history or background of this poll, see the old threads. What it boils down to is that a lot of people aren't completely happy with the civs included in Civ3 (or more accurately, with the civs not included). So the idea of this poll is to give everyone an oppurtunity to vote for the civs they would like to see in a future Civ3 expansion pack, presuming Firaxis ever decides to make one.
Rules
In this poll, you can give points to civs that you would like to see included in an expansion pack, with the following restrictions (which have as sole purpose to prevent this thread from being 'abused' in any way):
1) You must vote for at least 6 civs and for at most 16 (you can vote for any civ you want that isn't already in Civ3, whether it's a 'big one' like Spain or a 'small one' like Liechtenstein);
2) You must give at least 80 points and at most 160 (the more points, the more important you feel the civ is);
3) You can give at most 20 points per civ;
4) I, Locutus, am the 'moderator' of this poll and have to right to refuse or change any vote (immediately or retroactively) if I find it for whatever reason unsuitable; I will always announce any change or refusal and if you don't agree with my decisions, you can either change or retract your vote;
5) This poll is intended to be a representation of the wishes of the Apolyton community, so do not promote/advertise or otherwise mention this thread outside Apolyton or to non-Apolytoners; if you're not an Apolytoner yourself but just 'passing by' or found a link to this poll outside Apolyton, please don't vote.
Next, there are a few 'rules' that are intended to facilitate me in moderating this poll:
6) If you just post civ names and no points, the points will be distributed equally among all choices. So if you post 16 names without points, all choices will get 10 points. If you post 8 names, all choices will get 20 points. If you don't agree with the points I assigned to your choices, give points yourself in the first place or change your vote afterwards (see below).
7) If you wish to change your vote for any reason, that's possible; but please don't edit your existing post or just post a new list. This would be very confusing for me to keep track of. Instead, only post the changes you wish to make. FE, if you already voted but see someone vote for the Cubans and think 'that's brilliant, why didn't I think of that?', you can change your vote by posting 'Arabs -7, Cubans +7' or something like that. Please do this even if you still have enough points left, so I can doublecheck to make sure you don't exceed the maximum number of civs/points. So if you only 'spent' 150 points over 12 civs, don't just posts 'Cubans 10' but rather 'Cubans +10'. TIA for doing so.
I think rules 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are pretty obvious but 4 and 5 may need some explanation:
- Rule 4 is mostly for emergency situations, I don't plan on refusing votes on a large scale or changing people's vote to suit my own agenda or whatever. It's intention is to allow me to intervene in the exceptional case where people are (willingly or unwillingly) 'abusing' this thread. In the eyes of of most people it was probably already an unwritten rule in the past. I might also use this rule for things like merging similar civs together, preventing people from voting for non-civs like poodles/Washington Redskins/AC Milan/Britney Spears fans/whatever, stuff like that.
- Rule 5 is undoubtably the most controversial one, it's basically a drastic shift in the focus of this poll. The reason for this is that Apolyton is an international community with people from all over the world, and at least 95% of these people is intelligent and reasonable enough to not (willingly or unwillingly) use this thread for their own political agenda but to cast an well thought-out vote for all civs they truly think should be in a Civ3 expansion pack. The opinion of the average Apolytoners most likely isn't all that different from the opinion of the average Civ player. If nothing else, the 'Polish invasion' showed us that when non-Apolytoners are involved in this discussion, it's impossible to guarantee that these people will cast equally well thought-out votes and to an equal degree represent the entire world community. Even though the opinion of an 'outsider' is just as important and valuable as the opinion of an Apolytoner, it would only have any value for this poll if *all* 'outsiders' everywhere in the world would be informed about the existance of this poll and would be allowed to vote, something which is practically impossible.
I realize full well that it's near to impossible to enforce this rule, I'm relying on the common courtesy and decency of all involved not to break this rule. Let it be very clear: I certainly do not plan on declaring all settlers who registered within days or hours before posting their first post in this thread 'suspects'. I know there are many long-time lurkers out there, some of them could be (and even have been) persuaded by this poll to finally register and vote. They may not have a public history on Apolyton but they are Apolytoners non-the-less. The same goes for newcomers who happen to make (one of) their first posts in this poll, they may not have been Apolytoners for very long but they are here to stay and thus have every right to call themselves that.
The only people that are not 'allowed' to vote are people that hardly or never visited Apolyton in the past and don't have any intention of coming back in the future. Normally these people will only find this poll if it's advertised by others (like LoD did earlier), so that's why I ask all everyone not to promote this poll outside Apolyton.
Examples
Here are some example civs to guide you in picking your civs (by no means exhaustive, feel free to post others): (Africa) Bantu, Zimbabwe, Swahili, Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali, Moors, Morocco, Ethiopia/Axum, Nubia, Carthage, South Africa/Boer (Americas) Eskimo, Canada, Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache, Navajo, Hopi, Olmec, Maya, Inca, Tolmec, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina (Oceania) Maori, Aboriginals, Australia, Polynesia, Philippines, Indonesia (Asia) Khmer, Siam/Thai, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Mongol, Annam/Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Tamil, Sikh, Moghul, Kazakh, Pakistan, Parthia, Bactria, Armenia, Arabia, Hebrew, Hittites, Sumerian, Turkish/Ottomans, Byzantine, Phoenicia, Fillistines(sp?), Iraq (Europe) Spanish, Dutch, Minoan, Celts, Viking, Polish, Austria(-Hungary), Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danish, Scots, Irish, Belgium, Portuguese, Basque, Slavic, Serbia, Macedonia, Czech, Swiss, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Goths (for more: see ranking)
Ranking
Finally, in the post below you can see the latest update of the overall ranking. You can download an Excel worksheet with the complete data of this poll here (right-click and select 'Save Target As...').
Links
Below are links to discussions the most popular civs in the poll. Discussions on the properties of the top 16 civs can be held in these threads:
(Other links will be put here)
Last edited by Locutus on 14-11-2001 at 19:53
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:15
|
|
Last update: wervdon (time & date: see 'Last edited' at bottom), 252 valid votes casted, 38267 points given (= 94.9% of total # of points possible)
| #  | Civilizations | | Points | Votes | % |
|---|
| 1. | Spanish | | 3131 | 181 | 8,2% | | 2. | Mongols | | 2831 | 167 | 7,4% | | 3. | Arab | | 2665 | 160 | 7,0% | | 4. | Inca | | 2533 | 163 | 6,6% | | 5. | Vikings | | 2368 | 147 | 6,2% | | 6. | Turks/Ottomans | | 2304 | 149 | 6,0% | | 7. | Phoenicians/Carthaginians | | 1489 | 100 | 3,9% | | 8. | Maya | | 1314 | 95 | 3,4% | | 9. | Celts | | 1291 | 88 | 3,4% | | 10. | Portuguese | | 1228 | 82 | 3,2% | | 11. | Dutch | | 1178 | 86 | 3,1% | | 12. | Hebrew/Israelis | | 1108 | 78 | 2,9% | | 13. | Ethiopians/Aksumites | | 956 | 62 | 2,5% | | 14. | Poles | | 943 | 59 | 2,5% | | 15. | Koreans | | 799 | 48 | 2,1% | | 16. | Khmer | | 662 | 44 | 1,7% | | 17. | Byzantines | | 660 | 44 | 1,7% | | 18. | Polynesians | | 654 | 48 | 1,7% | | 19. | Mali(ans) | | 560 | 41 | 1,5% | | 20. | Austrians/Austro-Hungarians | | 495 | 32 | 1,3% | | 21. | Huns | | 386 | 26 | 1,0% | | 22. | Inuit/Eskimos/Aleutians | | 374 | 27 | 1,0% | | 23. | Assyrians | | 340 | 24 | 0,9% | | 24. | Australians | | 340 | 24 | 0,9% | | 25. | Sioux/Dakota | | 308 | 29 | 0,8% | | 26. | (Australian) Aborigines | | 298 | 20 | 0,8% | | 27. | Magyar/Hungarians | | 268 | 21 | 0,7% | | 28. | Siamese/Thai | | 262 | 20 | 0,7% | | 29. | Brazilians | | 250 | 18 | 0,7% | | 30. | Scots | | 250 | 17 | 0,7% | | 31. | Swedes | | 241 | 16 | 0,6% | | 32. | Tibetans | | 226 | 18 | 0,6% | | 33. | Slavs | | 200 | 14 | 0,5% | | 34. | Canadians | | 180 | 12 | 0,5% | | 35. | Annam/Vietnamese | | 177 | 14 | 0,5% | | 36. | Sumerians | | 175 | 13 | 0,5% | | 37. | Czech | | 168 | 11 | 0,4% | | 38. | Apache | | 159 | 12 | 0,4% | | 39. | Serbs | | 145 | 8 | 0,4% | | 40. | Neanderthals | | 143 | 8 | 0,4% | | 41. | Ukrainians | | 130 | 9 | 0,3% | | 42. | Minoans | | 125 | 8 | 0,3% | | 43. | Goths | | 120 | 9 | 0,3% | | 44. | Hittites | | 110 | 9 | 0,3% | | 45. | Indonesians | | 110 | 9 | 0,3% | | 46. | Zimbabweans | | 109 | 10 | 0,3% | | 47. | Ghanaians/Accrans | | 107 | 9 | 0,3% | | 48. | Swiss | | 105 | 6 | 0,3% | | 49. | Italians/Venetians | | 100 | 8 | 0,3% | | 50. | Argentinians | | 100 | 6 | 0,3% | | 51. | Cubans | | 100 | 5 | 0,3% | | 52. | Welsh | | 100 | 5 | 0,3% | | 53. | Nubians/Kushites | | 99 | 8 | 0,3% | | 54. | Native Americans/American Indians | | 91 | 9 | 0,2% | | 55. | Holy Romans/Catholics/Vaticans | | 90 | 6 | 0,2% | | 56. | Irish | | 90 | 6 | 0,2% | | 57. | Trojans | | 86 | 6 | 0,2% | | 58. | Latvians | | 86 | 5 | 0,2% | | 59. | Fins | | 85 | 5 | 0,2% | | 60. | Scandinavians | | 80 | 6 | 0,2% | | 61. | Bantu | | 75 | 6 | 0,2% | | 62. | Tartars | | 70 | 4 | 0,2% | | 63. | Nigerians/Swagilians | | 60 | 6 | 0,2% | | 64. | Songhai | | 60 | 5 | 0,2% | | 65. | Belgians | | 60 | 3 | 0,2% | | 66. | Confederates | | 60 | 3 | 0,2% | | 67. | Crown of Aragorn | | 60 | 3 | 0,2% | | 68. | Kazakhs | | 55 | 5 | 0,1% | | 69. | South East Asians | | 55 | 4 | 0,1% | | 70. | Olmec | | 52 | 6 | 0,1% | | 71. | Berbers/Moors | | 50 | 5 | 0,1% | | 72. | Maori | | 50 | 3 | 0,1% | | 73. | Californians | | 48 | 3 | 0,1% | | 74. | Harappans/Dravidians/Indus People | | 46 | 5 | 0,1% | | 75. | Mexicans | | 44 | 5 | 0,1% | | 76. | Anasazi | | 40 | 4 | 0,1% | | 77. | Cherokee | | 40 | 4 | 0,1% | | 78. | Amazonians (Native Brazilians) | | 40 | 3 | 0,1% | | 79. | Armenians | | 40 | 3 | 0,1% | | 80. | Danes | | 40 | 3 | 0,1% | | 81. | Etruscs | | 40 | 3 | 0,1% | | 82. | Filipinos | | 40 | 3 | 0,1% | | 83. | Swahili/Kilwans | | 40 | 3 | 0,1% | | 84. | Iraqis | | 40 | 2 | 0,1% | | 85. | Indo-Malays/Austronesians | | 35 | 2 | 0,1% | | 86. | Muslims/Near East Asians | | 35 | 2 | 0,1% | | 87. | Quebecois | | 33 | 3 | 0,1% | | 88. | Uzbek/LithuUzbek | | 32 | 3 | 0,1% | | 89. | Texans | | 31 | 3 | 0,1% | | 90. | Boers | | 30 | 3 | 0,1% | | 91. | Iberians | | 30 | 2 | 0,1% | | 92. | Iranians | | 30 | 2 | 0,1% | | 93. | Norwegians | | 30 | 2 | 0,1% | | 94. | Philistinians | | 30 | 2 | 0,1% | | 95. | Macedonians | | 29 | 2 | 0,1% | | 96. | Hmong | | 28 | 3 | 0,1% | | 97. | South Africans | | 25 | 3 | 0,1% | | 98. | Bulgarians | | 25 | 2 | 0,1% | | 99. | Virginians | | 25 | 2 | 0,1% | | 100. | Amazons | | 22 | 2 | 0,1% | | 101. | Navaho | | 20 | 3 | 0,1% | | 102. | Hawaiians | | 20 | 2 | 0,1% | | 103. | Al-Alandalus | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 104. | Almerienses | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 105. | Bangladeshis | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 106. | Bedouin | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 107. | Cartagenians (from Cartagena) | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 108. | Castilla-Leon/Castillians | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 109. | Pygmy | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 110. | Seljuks | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 111. | Singaporeans | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 112. | Snake Mounds | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 113. | Ugandians | | 20 | 1 | 0,1% | | 114. | Liechtenstein | | 17 | 2 | 0,0% | | 115. | Luxembourg | | 17 | 1 | 0,0% | | 116. | Yankees | | 15 | 2 | 0,0% | | 117. | Algonquiens | | 15 | 1 | 0,0% | | 118. | Manchu(rian)s | | 15 | 1 | 0,0% | | 119. | Sub-Saharans | | 15 | 1 | 0,0% | | 120. | Mesopotamians | | 12 | 1 | 0,0% | | 121. | Galactic Emperials (Star Wars) | | 11 | 2 | 0,0% | | 122. | New Zealanders | | 11 | 1 | 0,0% | | 123. | Caribbeans | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 124. | Geordie | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 125. | Hopi | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 126. | Javans | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 127. | Mon | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 128. | Teutons | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 129. | Tocharians | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 130. | Tunguz | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 131. | Tunisians | | 10 | 1 | 0,0% | | 132. | Columbians | | 7 | 1 | 0,0% | | 133. | Slovakians | | 7 | 1 | 0,0% | | 134. | Palestinians | | 5 | 1 | 0,0% | | 135. | Sámi | | 5 | 1 | 0,0% | | 136. | Hospitaliers | | 4 | 1 | 0,0% | | 137. | Fatty Lumpkins | | 2 | 2 | 0,0% | | 138. | Khwarizm | | 2 | 1 | 0,0% |
Last edited by Locutus on 01-12-2001 at 05:42
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:15
|
|
Okay guys, I recounted the list, as can be seen above. I deliberately counted exactly the same votes as in the last update of the previous thread (i.e. all votes up to Staszek, but all votes after Roland Ehnström were invalid under the new rules) and I will wait a few hours before updating the rest of the vote. This way everyone can see the effect of enforcing the new rules. Most notably, the Poles have lost almost 250 points but they only fell back 3 places on the overall ranking (from 12 to 15). Looks like even without a 'Polish invasion' we perfectly well recognize Poland as an important civ (though I'm sure the invasion helped a bit)...
Here's a list of all people who for who's vote were counted under the old rules but are no longer valid under the new ones (20 in total):
Bob Dornan (only 1 civ, 20 points)
Rasputin (only 5 civs, 50 points)
StSz (only voted 20 points)
PGM (only 3 civs, 41 points)
Orioles3386 (only voted for 4 civs)
Adrien (only voted for 5 civs)
krzysiek (only voted 55 points)
Brad (only 2 civs, 40 points)
Triped (only 1 civ, 20 points)
MarsJan (only 1 civ, 20 points)
Kalbarczyk (only voted for 4 civs)
Henryk Przerwa (only 1 civ, 20 points)
almaryk (only 1 civ, 20 points)
bartuk (only 1 civ, 20 points)
Maveus (only 1 civ, 20 points)
vasyl (only 4 civs, 40 points)
DZASKUL (only 1 civ, 20 points)
borg (only 3 civs, 60 points)
ogotai (only 3 civs, 40 points)
Staszek (only 1 civ, 20 points)
This doesn't yet include the people who's votes I haven't counted yet, I'll post their names next time when I update the ranking. If anyone wants to know if they still have points left or whatever, I refer to the Excel sheet I linked to above, it contains all the data collected in this poll, including the total number of points and civs that were voted for by each poster (who casted a valid vote).
On Gramphos's request, I added percentages as a statistic for each civ. If anyone else knows of any other fun things to keep track off, let me know.
For those of you who haven't done so already: keep on votin'... 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Gramphos
|
|
ACS Civ III Files Manager, Prince of Development
|
 |
Chalmers, Sweden
Apr 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MacTBone
Since you're using Excel now, can you post that file as an attachment? I'd like to see what I can do with it. |
He has it uploaded on another page linked to one of his first posts.
Locutus,
What I was saying is that if the ranking became over 20000 chars you would have expansion abilities within the thread 
Oh, and I thought of, now then you use Excel, why not have bars for each civ as well. (I've made some code for it in your file. If you want it please inform me.)
This is a sample. (current top 16) Edit: Top16 Ranking changed to Locutus' 213 votes update
| #  | Civilizations   | | Points   | Votes   | % | |
|---|
| 1. | Spanish | | 2548 | 149 | 7,8% |    | | 2. | Mongols | | 2372 | 139 | 7,3% |    | | 3. | Arab | | 2289 | 140 | 7,0% |    | | 4. | Inca | | 2153 | 141 | 6,6% |    | | 5. | Vikings | | 1928 | 122 | 5,9% |    | | 6. | Turks/Ottomans | | 1854 | 123 | 5,7% |    | | 7. | Phoenicians/Carthaginians | | 1319 | 90 | 4,1% |    | | 8. | Maya | | 1209 | 89 | 3,7% |    | | 9. | Celts | | 1090 | 76 | 3,3% |    | | 10. | Portuguese | | 958 | 65 | 2,9% |    | | 11. | Hebrew/Israelis | | 936 | 68 | 2,9% |    | | 12. | Dutch | | 904 | 69 | 2,8% |    | | 13. | Ethiopians/Aksumites | | 816 | 53 | 2,5% |    | | 14. | Poles | | 813 | 51 | 2,5% |    | | 15. | Koreans | | 656 | 40 | 2,0% |    | | 16. | Byzantines | | 585 | 39 | 1,8% |    |
Last edited by Gramphos on 04-11-2001 at 21:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:15
|
|
MacTBone,
It's too large for an attachment and Markos doesn't allow *.xls files to be attached. That's why I put it on my website (second posts, near the bottom, under the header Ranking).
Gramphos,
Okay, I get it now, as an emergency situation that would be possible, yes...
Well, I very much like the idea of the bars but I'm afraid that it takes up too much space. I currently still have something like 2000 characters available in the first post and I'll need those for extra civs that people might introduce in the future (typically a new civ is introduced once every 2-3 votes and can easily take up 150+ characters). It would only be a useful feature for the top 16 or so (the rest of the civs are way too close together, all bars would all be roughly equally long - or short rather) and it would require me to break up the ranking and spread it over 2 posts, something which I prefer not to do if I don't have to. But if enough people would really like this and noone objects to it, I might consider it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gramphos
|
|
ACS Civ III Files Manager, Prince of Development
|
 |
Chalmers, Sweden
Apr 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Locutus
Gramphos,
Okay, I get it now, as an emergency situation that would be possible, yes...
Well, I very much like the idea of the bars but I'm afraid that it takes up too much space. I currently still have something like 2000 characters available in the first post and I'll need those for extra civs that people might introduce in the future (typically a new civ is introduced once every 2-3 votes and can easily take up 150+ characters). It would only be a useful feature for the top 16 or so (the rest of the civs are way too close together, all bars would all be roughly equally long - or short rather) and it would require me to break up the ranking and spread it over 2 posts, something which I prefer not to do if I don't have to. But if enough people would really like this and noone objects to it, I might consider it. |
I've asked Mark in the Community to add two BB-codes that would make it mush smaller. And if you removed all tabs before you posted it it would be a little smaller too.
(And the current page I use is it easy to change the number of posts that have bars. Do you want it? Email me (so that I can get your e-mail address.))
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|